IPO analysis.
Every issue put through the same fifteen-point checklist: promoter record, financial health, peer valuation, the use of proceeds, and a listing-day plan kept separate from the investment case.
The framework first, then the issues.
There is no point publishing a verdict on an IPO before publishing the standard the verdict was measured against. The framework goes out first.
One issue, part by part.
The fifteen-point checklist groups into five questions, asked in this order, before any verdict is written down.
Promoter and record
Who is selling, what they have run before, and how the previous thing they listed behaved after listing.
Financial health
Three years plus the stub quarter the DRHP stops at — including the working-capital line most summaries skip.
Peer valuation
Priced as a premium or discount to comparable listed companies. An issue price on its own is a number without a scale.
Use of proceeds
How much is fresh capital into the business and how much is an existing holder getting out.
Two verdicts, apart
Apply or skip is one decision. Hold or sell on listing is a different one, and they are written separately.
GMP is sentiment, not a signal.
Every category here is written to the same four rules — a trigger, an invalidation, a size frame and a review. These three are specific to this one.
Grey market premium is reported, never relied on
GMP tells you what an unregulated market feels this week. It is quoted for context and it never carries a recommendation — an issue is judged on the DRHP, not on the queue outside it.
Priced against listed peers
Every valuation is stated as a premium or discount to comparable listed companies, because an issue price in isolation is a number without a scale.
Listing day is a separate decision
The investment case and the listing-day plan are written apart. Conflating “should I apply” with “should I hold” is how allotments turn into accidental long-term positions.